From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2def9aa85afa5d22 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-02 08:16:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: ian0kerr@my-deja.com (Ian) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Joint Strike Fighter Date: 2 Nov 2001 08:16:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <11bf7180.0111020816.2e376fd5@posting.google.com> References: <3BDCE159.39F6D422@adaworks.com> <11bf7180.0110290311.4d8d6f04@posting.google.com> <3BDF9C6A.C25520C5@adaworks.com> <3BE023AB.8F235EF5@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9rp8mo$6d8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <11bf7180.0111010338.6dbc1537@posting.google.com> <3be2614e.882178@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.245.40.230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1004717780 6866 127.0.0.1 (2 Nov 2001 16:16:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Nov 2001 16:16:20 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15660 Date: 2001-11-02T16:16:20+00:00 List-Id: john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe) wrote in message news:<3be2614e.882178@news.demon.co.uk>... > On 1 Nov 2001 03:38:12 -0800, ian0kerr@my-deja.com (Ian) wrote: > >Working currently on the VSTOL predecessor of JSF. GR.7 > I don't find > >anything that we need from Ada and the available tools that C++ would > >provide. > I'm confused by this comment, can you please explain it in slightly > different words? Ada provides us with everything we need. C++ does not have an advantage for us. > >GENESYS An Application of OO technology to Aircraft Display Systems, > >Neil Davidson, BAE Systems Avionics Ltd, Presented in Symposium on > >Reliable Object Orientated Programming, at Institution of Electrical > >Engineers, Savoy Place, London, 24th October 2001. > Wow - I Had no idea there was a process in place in your department. If you want a copy of the above, email me your snail address. :-; Well as Ron D. wrote a process, a while back, for your department why would you think we would be different? > I thought BAE *and* AeI were having > problems recruiting good, permanent Ada engineers because: The turn over is quite low and we get replacements quickly. > 1) They don't pay enough Money is not everything especially if the project is not the usual shambles! > 2) Many people don't want to do Ada! > >I have done courses on > >statecharts, UML, UML to Ada95 code generation, Test instrumentation > >tools for Ada and Ada95 updates. > That's good - we never got *any* training on the rig team! You should have asked your management as we had problems spending all the training money one year. Probably because other departments did not encourage training. > >I don't think it is that difficult to do avionics in Ada95 if you > >already know C++ properly, (assuming some knowledge of SW Engineering > >principles). > That depends on how flexible you are, and how much OO you want to use. > Looking at it the other way, I don't think it would be difficult to do > avionics in C++ if you already know Ada properly So why not just write it in Ada in the first place? > - and it will > certainly be more reliable if you have to use C++, Even my C++ course teacher thought that C++ was a dangerous language. > to use Ada trained > developers to do the job than those who have only ever used C/C++ > based languages! I hope you are happer where you are now. Ian